ABCT Bipolar SIG/Annual Meeting/2017

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search

2017 annual meeting: San Diego, CA[edit]

Organizational stuff[edit]

1. Presentation of Johnson-Youngstrom Poster Award[edit]

The award was presented to Tommy Ng for his work on meta-analyses of imaging. The prize was a $250 debit card. Congratulations!

2. Dues[edit]

Dues are $20/year for faculty and students are requested to contribute what they can. Submit payment online via PayPal, to Lauren's GMail account (see email).

3. Ideas for improving listserv[edit]

  1. Create a list: Name, email, current projects
  2. When preparing talks, compile symposiums. SIG members could submit talks, and the SIG can compile symposiums and submit.
  3. Sending around information, job offers, etc
  4. Organizing ABCT bipolar SIG at ISBD

4. Next steps for Bipolar SIG[edit]

  1. Send around Lauren Weinstock's paper in press
  2. Build bipolar disorder assessment battery matrix (Youngstrom, Miklowitz, Weinstock)
    1. Come up with a recommendation about core measures for a standard; need to include neurocog with Patty Walsh

Problems with recruitment/retention[edit]

1. Recruitment[edit]

  • Difficulty in recruitment of participants

1.1 Solutions[edit]

  • Video conferencing consenting, automated consent forms
  • Truncated assessments, with assessments at different time points
  • Human touch, e.g., sending snail mail, keeping in touch with participants' lives
  • Getting research consent by approaching potential participants in waiting room
  • Importance of well-trained research assistants to ensure participants' positive experience

2. Retention[edit]

  • Emerging online data collection makes it more difficult for retention

2.1 Solutions[edit]

  • Incentive-based system if people don't come back
  • Paying incentives based on number of completed trials (e.g., $0.01 per completed task, up to $50)
  • Progressive reinforcement (earning Amazon gift cards, etc)
  • Accounting for inflation (people get paid more over time)

Ethical issues[edit]

  • Discussed reinforcement for clinicians, paying extra -- not ethical

Assessment[edit]

Reliability[edit]

Inter-rater reliability is a key topic for validity of diagnoses, but there has been relatively little sharing of methods. One of the things that could be helpful is sharing methods and having a place to discuss issues and ideas.

  • Andrew Freeman described procedures for video recording, and inter rater reliability. (<-- could elaborate here)
    • What are best practices and feasible options for maintaining high inter-rater reliability in research?
      • Coding at symptom level
      • ADI-R as model of how to maintain reliability across groups -- biennial videos disseminated to maintain (Thanks, Talia!)
        • [ ] Look at ADI-R training system as a model to emulate
  • Lauren Weinstock raised questions about whether to correct errors when more information becomes available, versus live with that as an aspect of reliability.
  • Ben Goldstein made a distinction between clerical error vs. diagnostic evolution or incomplete clinical picture at snapshot
  • David Miklowitz described training procedure on KSADS, focusing on agreement at item level (because easier to achieve than diagnosis level).
  • Yee et al. JCCAP, filtered vs unfiltered ratings paper

Rating scales[edit]

Meta-analyses are helping to establish which are the robust measures that continue to show good psychometrics across a variety of samples. This could be a place to talk about ideas for secondary analyses and also looking at the priority areas for future work.

Self report measures could provide a way to calibrate across raters or sites -- consistent method, no variance due to differences in training.

Cross informant issues[edit]

(Let's invite Gaye!)

Open Teaching of Psychological Science is a place that we are sharing scoring information,[edit]

REDCAP versus Qualtrics

What are the advantages and disadvantages of tightly controlled data capture versus more open systems?